"North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion...

[Darias]

So according to this, some GOP folks have put forth a bill that would make NC exempt from observing the first amendment of the US Constitution:

• SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

• SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

This bill is for the purpose of establishing some form of Christianity in North Carolina, in the form of official state prayers before meetings and in public schools, or whatever you can think of.

If such a bill were to pass, this would also grant some teeth to the unconstitutional state law, Article 6, Section 8,, which doesn't allow atheists to hold office. The reason why it is largely ignored today is solely because of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean that people haven't faced difficulties because of this law.

Considering the sheer number of people in my state who don't see a problem with either of these, combined with the fact that they voted for the very people who proposed this bill, gives me a reason to be concerned.

I don't know if this bill will pass, but I'd be mistaken if I thought people wouldn't support it. The fact that the bill even exists indicates that something is terribly, horribly wrong with my state.


What do you guys think about this?

Do you support this bill? Why or why not? What are the chances of this bill passing?

[East of Eden]

From Post 15:

...that militant secular revisionists now wrongly describe as 'establishment' or 'theocracy'.

It can't possibly be a bunch of "militant religious revisionists" at work, can it?

No doubt thats what you would call the Founders.

I call 'em dead.

So lets have a state church, I mean the Founders who prohibited that are dead, right?

The amount of argument from authority that goes on in politics is scary.

Do, or not do, things because they are good or bad. Consititutions can be wrong, constitutiins can be corrupt - enact the right laws, not the constitutional ones.

The honest thing to do is change the Constitution if you don't like it, it can be done, rather than going down the lawless road of ignoring parts you don't like.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

So lets have a state church, I mean the Founders who prohibited that are dead, right?

Maybe if they'll do us all the courtesy to hop up out of their graves.

I contend that referring to the ancients, as you did, about how we oughta go about living our today is as goofy as making a time machine just to go back and tell these ancients about how they oughta go about living their then.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

The honest thing to do is change the Constitution if you don't like it, it can be done, rather than going down the lawless road of ignoring parts you don't like.

"Honesty" here is in the eye of the beholder, and I contend its use here is in the form of an ad hominen (if unintended) argument.

I've taken the vow to uphold it, I've served in an effort to uphold it, only I contend that by my trying to uphold it, some folks'll swear up and down I ain't being "honest" about it if I disagree on their take of it.

That said, where the Constitution fails, it should be rejected, "change" or not.